Cited by 1,141Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand

Open access
Kool, Wouter, McGuire, Joseph T., Rosen, Zev B., Botvinick, Matthew M.·2010·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Behavioral and economic theories have long maintained that actions are chosen so as to minimize demands for exertion or work, a principle sometimes referred to as the law of less work. The data supporting this idea pertain almost entirely to demands for physical effort. However, the same minimization principle has often been assumed also to apply to cognitive demand. The authors set out to evaluate the validity of this assumption. In 6 behavioral experiments, participants chose freely between courses of action associated with different levels of demand for controlled information processing. Together, the results of these experiments revealed a bias in favor of the less demanding course of action. The bias was obtained across a range of choice settings and demand manipulations and was not wholly attributable to strategic avoidance of errors, minimization of time on task, or maximization of the rate of goal achievement. It is remarkable that the effect also did not depend on awareness of the demand manipulation. Consistent with a motivational account, avoidance of demand displayed sensitivity to task incentives and covaried with individual differences in the efficacy of executive control. The findings reported, together with convergent neuroscientific evidence, lend support to the idea that anticipated cognitive demand plays a significant role in behavioral decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020198

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Not all decisions to offload cognitive processes follow cost-benefit considerations but may also be influenced by the current goals of the observers as well as their tendency to avoid demanding cognitive actions.

    “However, not all decisions to offload cognitive processes follow cost–benefit considerations of different strategies but may also be influenced by the current goals of the observers (Weis & Wiese, 2019) as well as their tendency to avoid demanding cognitive actions (Ballard et al., 1997; Kool et al., 2010; Sachdeva & Gilbert, 2020).”
  • A processing cost bias is a broadly manifested feature of cognition in general.

    “It is important to distinguish this view from the claims underlying UG-based theories, whereas UG, as standardly understood, includes inborn principles of grammar, a processing cost bias is a broadly manifested feature of cognition in general.”
  • The avoidance and minimization of cognitive demand is a fundamental principle of cognition.

    “. . . the avoidance [and minimization] of cognitive demand is a fundamental principle of cognition . . .[15] (p. 2), citing [16]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stephens DW Krebs JR Foraging theory 1986 Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2010
Volume
139
Issue
4
Pages
665-682
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2092813663
Cited by
1,141
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 102 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 25
FWCI
16.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH062196)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
cognitive demand, decision-making, effort minimization, executive function, individual differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review